In 1709 (or was it 1710?) the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all. To contact the 1709 Blog, email Eleonora at eleonorarosati[at]gmail.com

Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Digital copies, exhaustion, and blockchains: lack of legal clarity to be offset by technological advancement and evolving consumption patterns?

Can you resell the books, CDs, and DVDs that you are no longer interested in having? The answer to this question is easy: usually, yes.

But what about the case of ebooks, music tracks, and films downloaded from the internet? Well, here, the question is more difficult and - at least at the EU level - does not have a clear answer yet. The issue is particularly complex due to both practical and legal reasons.

The following post can be accompanied bythese slidesI prepared for a recent lecture at Bocconi University in Milan.

Degradation (or lack thereof)

A perfect analogy between physical and digital copies of a work does not seem really possible to be drawn in the first place. Unlike analogue/physical copies (eg a book), in principle the digital copy of a work is not subject to any sort of appreciable degradation. If you read the same ebook five times, the quality of the copy you have remains substantially unaltered. However, can you say the same about a physical copy of a book?

Control (or lack thereof)

Another argument that is sometimes advanced to highlight the difference between analogue and physical copies is that greater control can be exerted over the transmission of a physical copy. If you allowed someone to transfer his/her digital copy of a work, how can you make sure that this person would not just create a new copy and keep his/her original one?

While this argument may hold some truth in principle, reality is that anti-copying technologies have been in place for years and some (albeit ill-fated) second-hand digital marketplaces[egReDigi, which was at the centre of aninteresting US caseback in 2013]have demonstrated that it is possible to allow the transfer of one's own copy without real possibilities of duplication. Also latest developments (see below) suggest that the control argument may be short-lived.

Legal obstacles

Besides technical considerations the legislative framework appears (problematically) ambiguous, both in Europe and the US.

As readers will know, the right of distribution (which is relevant to the present discussion) is subject to exhaustion, further to the first lawfulsaleof a copyright work or a copy thereof.

While for analogue/physical copies the concept of exhaustion is not difficult to grasp (you buy a book at a bookshop - you become the owner of the copy - you can resell that copy), the same is hardly true in relation to digital copies. Essentially, the issue is twofold, ie whether:

(1) There is ever an actual 'sale' of a digital copy: even if we see 'buy' all the time in relation to Amazon ebooks or iTunes tracks, the actual contract we formally conclude by 'buying' an ebook or a music file is a licence agreement, not a sale.

(2) The person who 'purchases'/'buys' a digital copy ever becomes the 'owner' of that copy.

The answer – at least formally – may be in the negative in both cases.

The US scenario

In relation to the US, it is unclear[theReDigidecision contains some hints, but these are not decisive, as I suggestedhere]whether this country's copyright law allows application of thefirst sale doctrinewithin§109 of the US Copyright Act to digital copies, although this provision has beensaidto be technology-neutral in that it would not distinguish between analogue and digital copies. This suggests that there is nothing in US law that states that the notion of ‘copy’ must be intended as confined solely to tangible copies.

This said, however, during a2013 lectureat Columbia Law School former US Register of Copyright and current president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers,Maria Pallante, suggested that US law does not allow for the possibility to resell digital copies of copyright works, and that this is a matter for Congress to address.

Not entirely uncommon reaction to the UsedSoft ruling

The EU scenario

Moving to Europe, readers will remember that this blog has closely followed[Katpostshere]the debate arisen in the aftermath of the (controversial) 2012 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) inUsedSoft, C-128/11, in which our favourite court affirmed the possibility of digital exhaustion under theSoftware Directivein relation to computer programs downloaded from the internet.

While the CJEU confirmed the general principle ofUsedSoftin its more recent (2016) decision inMicrosoft, C-166/15[here], it remains unclear whether and to what extent this conclusion can be extended to works other than computer programs and that fall under the scope of the general EU copyright directive, ie theInfoSoc Directive.

In hisOpinion[here]inVOB, C-174/15 (an e-lending case) Advocate General (AG) Szpunar held the view that the issue remains unaddressed at the EU level, and that the 2015 CJEU decision inAllposters, C-419/13[Katpostshere]did not provide a response to the question whether Article 4 of the InfoSoc Directive envisages digital exhaustion.

While this appears true from a formal standpoint (Allpostersis a traditional – albeit unusual - analogue case, and has nothing to do with the digital world), my view is that - if the CJEU was given a real opportunity to address the issue of digital exhaustion - there might be a divergence from the path taken inUsedSoft. First, inAllpostersthe CJEU was pretty clear that exhaustion only applies to the tangible support (corpus mechanicum) of a work, not the work itself. Secondly, although dismissing the idea that the reference had anything to do with exhaustion, in its 2016VOBdecision[here]the CJEU appeared to think along lines similar to those used inAllposterswhen it suggested that exhaustion relates to the "physical medium" of a work.

Whether a digital copy can ever have a tangible support remains to be seen …

What is new

Amidst all this uncertainty, the latest news is that technological advancement might reduce - if not remove altogether - technological concerns surrounding the possibility of digital exhaustion (particularly the issue of different degrees of control).

The most recent installment is in fact that blockchain tracking technology[yes, the technology originally invented to makebitcointransactions safer]is being proposed as an aid to make ebooks increasingly akin to analogue/physical copies. Blockchain technology allows in fact readers to 'own' an ebook and 'borrow' it to others, thank to the possibility to track this peculiar type of transaction.

The first 'disintegrating e-book' has just been placed on the market: you can see how it workshere.

IFPI Global Music Report 2017

However

While technological arguments against allowing or denying digital exhaustion may become increasingly weaker, the law around digital exhaustion remains uncertain. In addition, at the moment it appears that the issue of digital exhaustion is not really part of any meaningful policy discussion, whether in the US or EU.

This said, shifting consumer behaviours may ultimately make addressing the issue of digital exhaustion redundant, at least as regards certain types of copyright content. There seems to be in fact an increasing trend towards consuming copyright content not by means of actually possessing (NOTE: ≠ owning) of a digital copy (eg an internet download) but rather through streaming content online. This appears for instance to be the case of music. In its latestGlobal Music Report, IFPI highlighted how streaming continues to grow, while the number of downloads has been decreasing over time.

Overall, digital exhaustion might become one of those issues that the law has failed to address clearly in a timely fashion but that ultimately might be offset by technological advancement and evolving consumption patterns. Whether this wait-and-see approach is desirable, however, is a different story …

1 comment:

I am pretty sceptical that blockchain will prove any more successful at deterring professional IP theft than any of the previous technologies. The strength of blockchain is in preserving the provenance of a piece of data such as a bitcoin transaction. In contrast IP thieves do not wish to leave an audit trail so they can happily discard the blockchain element while preserving the underlying data which comprises the copyright work. As all copyright works have to be de-crypted before they are made visible or audible on the user's device, that is the point at which they are vulnerable to capture and copying. If the target of all this new technology is the casual copying or format shifting for personal use, then yes maybe blockchain (like DRM) will be successful where the user is technologically unsophisticated, but it won't cause the professional bootleggers any significant problem.

Search This Blog

Would you like to receive each post by email?

2,804 readers now receive The 1709 Blog by email circular. Why don't you join them? To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button

email:

Folllow us on Twitter

The 1709 Blog, and some of the choice comments of its blog team on copyright topics, can now be followed on Twitter at @1709Blog. When we last looked, we had 2,214 followers so, if you sign up, you won't be alone!